On 2 June 2026, in its judgment 9C_235/2026, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismissed a health insurance dispute complaint that had been “obviously drafted with so-called artificial intelligence (AI)” by an unrepresented individual. The court described the pleading as containing a “blurry accusation” and “interchangeable submissions without substance”, and ultimately did not even enter on the complaint.
This case is a clear signal: generative AI can produce text, but it cannot develop legal strategy. Anyone who relies too heavily on AI without any legal expert review risks not only losing the case, but also bearing court costs and worsening their legal position.
What the Federal Supreme Court concretely decided on the AI complaint
The complainant challenged a decision of the Lucerne Cantonal Court in a dispute over outstanding health insurance premiums. He submitted two pleadings that were “obviously drafted with so-called artificial intelligence (AI)”, as the Federal Supreme Court noted.
The complaint contained general objections (e.g. “contradictory file situation”, “lack of transparent presentation”), but no concrete references to the reasoning of the lower court. The court found:
- a “blurry accusation” that did not “in any way” relate to the outstanding premiums;
- “interchangeable submissions without substance”;
- no legally sufficient statement of claim under Art. 42 BGG.
The Federal Supreme Court therefore, in a simplified procedure, did not enter on the complaint. In this case, no court costs were imposed; however, had the court seriously dealt with the “arguments”, the advance on costs alone would have been CHF 500 – cost can rise up to CHF 5’000 even with low amounts in dispute.
What companies and private individuals must learn about using AI in legal matters
This judgment is not a blanket rejection of AI, but a clear warning: AI is a tool, not a substitute for legal responsibility.
- For companies:
If you use AI to draft contracts, compliance statements, or data protection documents, every AI-generated text passage must be reviewed, adapted, and fact-specifically substantiated by a qualified professional (e.g. data protection officer, legal department). The risk of “generic statements” and “submissions without substance” is just as high in practice as in court proceedings. - For private individuals:
Using AI for initial orientation is useful, but a complaint, application, or lawsuit that is purely AI-generated and submitted without legal advice is likely to end in a blunder like in case 9C_235/2026, with possible loss, additional costs, and the lower court decision becoming legally binding .
Our recommendation: AI as an assistant, lawyer as decision-maker
From our practice as lawyers specializing in data protection and digital matters, we recommend:
- Use AI for draft text, structural help, and wording variants.
- Have every legally relevant passage reviewed, adapted, and fact-specifically supported by a specialized legal professional.
- Document this review internally, especially under the GDPR and the new AI Act, to demonstrate human responsibility and control.
The Federal Supreme Court’s ruling is unequivocal: anyone who relies too heavily on generative AI and skips legal expert review will end up producing only “blurry accusations” and “submissions without substance” – both before courts and in business life.
If you need support on the legally compliant use of AI in your company – for example regarding data protection, liability, and document review – please contact us. We will assist you from the AI policy to court-ready and lawyer-reviewed contract and complaint practice.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has long been part of our everyday lives. AI has become indispensable in schools, universities and businesses. Given the rapid development of artificial intelligence and its increasing presence in everyday life, it is becoming increasingly important to examine its opportunities and risks.
On February 23, 2026, the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner and around 60 other national data protection authorites worldwide published a joint statement on AI-generated images. This statement marks an important step in the international discussion on privacy and data protection in the digital age.
Deepfakes and AI: Why Data Protection Authorities Worldwide Are Issuing Warnings
Data protection authorites have expressed serious concerns about systems that use artificial intelligence to generate realistic images or videos of identifiable individual without their consent. Such technologies carry a high risk of abuse, for example through the creation of non-consensual, intimate depictions (known as deepfakes). Childern and other vulnerable groups are particularly at risk of becoming targets of cyberbullying, sexual exploitation or identity theft.
Laws in Switzerland: Are AI-generated images permitted?
In many juristictions – including Switzerland – the creation or distribution of images that have not been created with consent can have criminal consequences. From a data protection perspective, that use of AI systems to create realistic images raises significant questions regarding the legality of data processing and the protection of privacy. Personal data my only be used if there is a legal basis for doing so or if the data subject has given their expressed consent. Companies offering such systems must ensure that appropriate technical and organizational measures are taken to prevent misuse and unauthorized processing.
Recommendations for working with AI
The joint statement by the data protection authorities sets out several key principles that all organizations should follow:
- Impementation of robust protective measures to prevent the misuse of personal data and the creation of non-consensual intimate depictions and other harmful content, especially involving children.
- Ensuring meanigful transparency regarding the capabilities of AI systems, the protective mechanisms implementet, permissible uses, and the potential consequences of misuse.
- Provision of effective and easily accesible procedures through which data subjects can request the removal of harmful content relating to them.
- Special protection for children and other vulnerable groups.
Conclusion: Techological progress requires responsibility
The risks posed by AI-generated images are global and require urgent regulatory action. While AI offers enormous opportunities, technological progress must not come at the expense of privacy, data protection and other fundamental rights.